Talk:Nokia 6301

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Telecommunications  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Brands  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

I am in mid write at the moment. Purpose of page is to compare/contrast this device to the Nokia 6300 which is almost identical in appearance but vastly difference in capability. I'm not selling these, I'm attempting to do education. If you feel you must delete, so be it. Won't be the first time someone has deleted something I've written, won't be the last.Tzsm98 (talk) 03:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I've gotten the comparison done. I'm afraid I may have rushed it a bit, but oh, well. If you still think I'm shilling for Nokia then so be it. The only reason I even started on this was I was reading another article about a Nokia phone and saw the 6301 was missing in the listing at the bottom of that article.

I used to know how to get images to show up but the gallery has me stymied tonight. If you don't delete me I'll come back and fix it. Best wishes. Tzsm98 (talk) 04:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Also - the joker who thought I was writing a page that served no purpose but to disparage or threaten my subject - learn to either hit the correct button or learn to read. Tzsm98 (talk) 04:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I am now left to ponder what immediate deletion means. It was tagged before I could finish writing it and now it sits with a huge tag on it and no response to my protest to being tagged. I have to wonder about the motivations of the tagger. Tzsm98 (talk) 08:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for accepting my article. I realize this is not world shaking scholarship but it does add, I believe, somewhat to the body of knowledge that makes up our culture. Tzsm98 (talk) 17:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Merger With 6300 Page[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was no consensus. Not merged D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I see there is a move afoot to merge the 6301 with the 6300 page. That is an excellent idea. Both look phones the same and there is no better way to highlight the functional differences than to put them both on the same page.

I'm not sure what sort of structure the merged article could take. I do know that one of the important aspects I am wanting to maintain is both the 6300 and the 6301 come in two variants so that in the end there were actually four models that were physically identical but electrically dissimilar in a variety of ways.

Wiki design is not something I've had time to grasp. I want to thank whoever it was who came in and re-ordered this article a month or so ago. I'm willing to provide information but if someone can assist with the formatting that will be super.

I'd like to see the 6300 authors chime in on this as well. Tzsm98 (talk) 22:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Merger with 6300 is not a good idea. The 6301 has UMA capabilty lacking on the 6300. It is a unique feature that completely differentiates the phones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David depaoli (talkcontribs) 09:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.